Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Senator Clinton "Moves to the Middle" -- of What?

This story, in the New York Newsday, recounts Sen. Clinton's "repositioning" on issues such as abortion and the involvement of faith and morals in the life of the family. This might be the middle ground between, say, Barbara Boxer and Joe Lieberman, but hardly represents the middle between abortionists and pro-life (a.k.a., civil rights) advocates.

Here’s the highlight of the article:

"Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those are terminated," Clinton said. "Making contraception more accessible and affordable is critical to reducing the number of unintended pregnancies."

Clinton, who strongly favors abortion rights, went on to call her proposal a place "where people on both sides of the abortion debate can come together to reach common ground."

I don’t doubt Ms. Clinton is very bright and understands that the most unswerving pro-lifers aren't looking to contraception to avoid "unintended pregnancies." On the contrary; her language represents a broken, upside-down view of the role of sexuality and its blessings. Many pro-lifers understand that sexual union between a husband and wife is a reflection of the triune communion of God and our chance to participate in God's gift to us through sacramental marriage and the distinctly conjugal expression of love. When a child is the result of this love, it is as joyous and profound as the universe itself is recreated at the creation of another new body and soul. I'm sure there are other pro-lifers who take other views, such as the equal protection of every person (regardless of physiology or mortally-dependent relationships) under the Constitution. The pro-life movement is rich in understanding the significance of life and its creation. Until eschaton, fallen man will engage in extra-martial sex, it is naive to suggest otherwise. Dispensing jimmy caps isn’t a true or “mid-way” remedy. It's an encouragement to dissolution of the integrity of being; it's a trajectory in the wrong direction.

So then, in a faint echo of Kerry’s attempt to legitimize a Catholic schism in the American Church, is the real goal the splintering the pro-life movement? As we’ve seen in the past, only the abortionists and the mainstream media buy this "new again, old again" position. Remember Jocelyn Elders’ "Every child a wanted child?" Remember which crowd bought that nonsense?

1 comment:

Jim Berrettini said...

Ox, treefrog,

Maybe I'm the pessimist on this, but no comic is going to take Hillary on about the sex stuff. She manages to make sex unsexy (and unfunny). The Hillary jokes are the same ones we already know (Bill and marital discord, cold as ice, etc.). Hillary wants to hand out condoms to reduce abortions . . . it doesn't have the Elders touch. However wrong-headed it may be, it's not joke material.

I don't agree that John Kerry actively sought to cause a schism in the Church -- that's giving him far too much credit. John Kerry wanted 58% of the Catholic vote but didn't know how to get it.

Contraception sells, and to more than just abortionists and the media. It's popular among many who shrink from abortion. I have rational friends, many Catholic, for whom this strategy could work. Hillary is very sharp. Her strategy, as treefrog indicated, is just to neutralize the issue, not necessarily to make it hers.

For Catholics, catechesis would help. Catholics also have to reach out to their secular allies (the Nat Hentoff's, the Not Dead Yet's) and continue to make secular arguments about the public good.

Some judges would help, too.

Goodreads Feed